AVTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner owns some land including garden land measuring about 16 acres in the area of village Goniana, tehsil Muktsar, district Ferozepur. The garden is irrigated from Outlet R.D. 17191 T.R. Barkandi Minor and the petitioner had been getting water from this minor to the extent of 3.35 Cs. as water allowance for a considerable long time. The Executive Engineer, Abohar, wrote a letter dated 21.4.70 (Annexure A) to the Deputy Collector, Abohar, to reduce the ratio of the garden waris (turns) from 3.35 to 2.28. The Deputy Collector, Abohar, reduced the wari accordingly vide his order dated 19.5.70 (Annexure 'C'). Aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Collector, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Divisional Canal Officer, who dismissed the same on 31.8.1970 behind the back of the petitioner. The petitioner applied for a copy of the order of the appellate authority, but it was refused to him vide letter dated 11.2.71 (Annexure 'D'). Dissatisfied by the order of the Deputy Collector, which was confirmed on appeal by the Divisional Canal Officer, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Superintending Canal Officer, who dismissed the same in the absence of the petitioner. It is against the orders of the Deputy Collector dated May 19, 1970 (Annexure 'C') and of the Divisional Canal Officer dated 31st August, 1970 that the present petition has been filed.

(2.) The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in the case of gardens a definite procedure is laid down. The Punjab Public Works Department, Irrigation Branch, has framed rules known as "Extra Supply of Canal Water Rules for Gardens and Orchards". Rule 6 of the said Rules is in the following terms :-

(3.) Under this rule, the whole procedure is laid down as to how the water in the case of gardens is to be reduced; a list has to be prepared where such reduction is to be made and it is to be sent by the Superintending Engineer to the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Works, for the advice of the Director of Agriculture. It is only then that the Director of Agriculture recommends the reduction that the supply of water is reduced after giving one year's notice to the individual concerned. Admittedly, the procedure, as laid down in rule 6 ibid, was not followed by the respondents. In Para 6 of the return filed by Deputy Collector, it is admitted that the Divisional Canal Officer did not issue notice for hearing the appeal as in his opinion it was not a proper case for appeal and that since the appeal was not heard and no inquiry was considered necessary to be conducted, no copy of such order could be given under rules. The impugned order (Annexure 'C') was passed by the Deputy Collector under Section 68(1) of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and an aggrieved party can file an appeal under sub-section (5) of Section 68 which is in the following terms :-